The forum: 10 a.m. to noon; the seven candidates, a mike in front of each, sitting behind long narrow tables stretching straight out on either side of a podium--all upon simple hotel risers and backed by state and American flags against run-of-the-mill hotel pipe and drape.

The day in full was the DNC Eastern Regional Caucus Caucus: breakfast, forum, lunch and other events, such as a forum for the candidates for the five vice-chair positions. All over by 4 p.m.

Each candidate for chair spoke in turn following opening remarks from both the regional chair, who I understood (perhaps incorrectly?) to be Ray Buckley, a Party leader in New Hampshire, and Alice Germond, Secretary of the DNC and wife of the one and only Jack Germond, the veteran political reporter.

From the podium, Alice Germond explained that at the DNC's February 10-12 meeting in D.C., the 447 voting members of the committee will elect a chair by simple majority, with losing candidates being taken out of the running after each round of balloting until one candidate gets 224 votes. Five vice-chairs would also be elected. The voting is structured in such a way that of the six chairs in total (1 chair + 5 vice-chairs), three will be three men, three women. A treasurer, secretary, and the National Finance Chair will also be elected.

Buckley spoke briefly relative to the northeastern region, saying that its a "blue" region, but it took work to make it so, the fruits of which were not seen fully until 1992's election. From 1968-1992 the region was hardly reliably blue, and only D.C. has gone "blue" in every election. He laid out some broad goals and observations:

FACT: there are 10 campaigns for governorships in the northeastern region in the next 20 months
FACT: Only 6 U.S. Senators give the GOP control of the chamber...exactly the number of Senator seats Democrats don't possess in the region.
GIST: The region's voters have never been so blue, so these senator and the 31 Republican U.S. Representatives may be quite vulnerable. The region should be seen as a battleground that, if won, could give the Democrat Party control of the U.S. Senate.

All of these comments received pretty rousing applause. But one critically important point Butler made did not, which I found worrying at the time. He stressed that since state legislative bodies draw congressional districts, and since state elected officers lead such enterprises as designing ballots and counting votes, more attention from the national level had to be given to state races. Silence. It was, from a genuine grassroots perspective, the most important thing he said, and no one seemed moved.

The candidates, their comments, my thoughts:

MARTIN FROST

Going first would have put the vaguely professorial-looking and heavily-drawling Frost, who is of small stature, at a disadvantage, except that his stump speech is down pat, and he's heard the stump speeches of all the other candidates at earlier forums.

Frost placed himself in the context of proven, heroic Southern civil rights work. In this, he is honest and sincere.
>He was an active, young Democrat in the South in the era of civil rights, and was part of Herbert Humphrey's '68 campaign.
>He also placed himself in the context of women's issues, citing that he clerked for the author of the lower court decision that lead to Roe v. Wade, and that his wife is a Maj. Gen. in the U.S. Army--it's highest-ranking female.
>He stressed his 13 victories in a "red" state (Texas) as evidence of understanding that races are won at the local level by people who understand the local lay of the political landscape--a reality that would shape his leadership of the DNC.
>Frost also noted that he has been the victim of "opposition research" relative to the race for DNC chair. He did not name names, but clearly found it disappointing that Democrats were seeing Democrats, not Republicans, as the opposition.

Frost is by no means my first choice for chair, but he's been given a bit of an overly rough treatment from some of my fellow progressive Democrats, I feel. Frost ably chaired the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). And though he lost his congressional race in 2004, Tom DeLay's dishonorable redistricting scheme is more to blame than Frost. Frost did what he felt he needed to do in order to win. There's evidence it was an acceptable strategy under for that specific district; apparently, he converted Republicans to his cause and noticeably narrowed the GOP swing in a solidly red district.

But I find Frost to be a guardian of the past and a fair source for regional political wisdom, not a leader for the future of the Party as a whole. I simply don't see in him much conviction, either.

WELLINGTON WEBB

Mayor Webb is already a DNC vice-chair. In retrospect, he packed a lot into his short allotted time, but that perhaps contributed to a degree of incoherence.
>The best thing he said, in graceful but casual oratory, was that as DNC chair he would see to it each of the 447 members would work and have a role. The insinuations seemed to be that there are members not doing as much as they could, but plenty of others who aren't being allowed to do more when they want to, especially in their home states.
>Webb stressed that the DNC model of importing outside experts into states was overused, and the DNC must be willing to pay local people to help lead local efforts.
>In statements on increasing DNC diversity, Webb provided the morning's first allusion to what proved to be the most controversial of four amendments, authored by Don Fowler, Sr., to the DNC's charter and bylaws: to reduce the number of appointed members at large from 75 to 25.
>As evidence of his qualifications, Webb stated he'd been to countless "J-J dinners." The question, "What's that?" was murmured among many non-member attendee, and added yet another tiny piece of anecdotal evidence to the collective mountain of stories proving the oft-mentioned disconnect between Democratic rank and file and the members of the machine, like Webb. Webb's insider nomenclature meant Jefferson-Jackson dinners. They are Party fund-raisers that occur across the country, with Iowa's being an example--perhaps the only--of a "J-J' dinner that has recently captured a morsel of national press.
>Webb rightfully stressed the need for the DNC to not take its base for granted. He reminded us that 28% of African-Americans in Oklahoma voted for Bush, and 50% of non-Cuban Hispanics in Florida.
>Webb ended strong, demanding that we stop the Republicans dancing on the grave of the better America created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

HOWARD DEAN

Confident, steady, but insistent, Dean demonstrated charisma that was imperfect and quiet at best--yet more than sufficient to carry the day.
>The only candidate to have been a governor, he pointed out his comfort with large budgets.
>He clearly has a host of ideas he wants to try. One he mentioned: get the leaders of the 5 best election districts in the nation together as a resource--let them craft guidelines and tips so that the elements common to their successes can be disseminated to all Democratic "E.D." leaders.
>While other candidates pledged themselves to the concept of a DNC dedicated to a permanent campaign in every state, Dean articulated the vision particularly well, saying that the DNC needs 4-year campaigns, not 8-month campaigns that are dismantled and then must be reconstructed each time in each state.
>Dean stressed state races, say that the DNC must target state races, too. Consider the influence of secretaries of state and county clerk in the 2004 presidential election. But for manipulations by such state officials in Ohio, it's conceivable John Kerry would now be President.
>Dean was the only candidate to tailor a DNC policy towards the fairly local audience, pledging that as DNC chair he'd stopped using the northeast as the Party's ATM, and would invest money and Party effort here, too. This resonated very strongly with me as a local politico aware that Democrats for the first time in many years are within striking distance of capturing the State Senate, which would result in a sea change for Empire State politics. As New York was the testing ground, under Gov. Roosevelt, for what became the New Deal when applied nationally, so we could become the fertile soil of a new era of popular and comprehensive pragmatic progressivism.
>Dean necessarily pointed to Democracy for America, born of his presidential race that brought a million new people to the Democratic Party.
>It is time, he said, to not concede that Republicans are simply "still better" at political operations than we are, and walk away. But it is time to look to our soul as a party, articulate that.

SIMON ROSENBERG

His call was, "We need a new day for Democrats." Rosenberg was not the most polished or charismatic. But on critical aspect of both Party vision and the "how to," the mechanics, he has a nonetheless compelling grasp, and not merely academically, but as someone who has put his ideas in to practice. Dean is my first choice, and I hope the rumors of a Dean-Rosenberg alliance are true.
>The GOP has constructed an "information age Tammany Hall," said Rosenberg.
>He repeated as four points ideas that I associate as much with Dean and Fowler, too:

1. We need better messaging
   
2. We need a better machine
   
3. We need a new commitment to grassroots politics
   
4. We need to seek, in fact >fight>, to win everywhere, in all 50 states.
   

>He noted that he's fundraised for races in 48 states and been in the trenches in 12, and is the only candidate who has not run for public office. I suppose the later could be seen as a disadvantage; but, he point was probably that he was a genuine worker, planner, and manager, which is what the DNC needs badly.
>Rosenberg also noted that the DNC needs to create the "capacity" to "fight with new tools," including the Internet.
>Rosenberg founded the New Democratic Network, and through it and other efforts he has raised millions or dollars for Democrats.

If it weren't for Rosenberg's great litany of real results all over the country, as well as his special care for the Hispanic vote (he speaks Spanish and his organizations' efforts dramatically reduced Bush's percentage of the Hispanic vote in every state in which they were applied operated), I might prefer Fowler over Rosenberg. But, this guy has some >serious results> to show for his labors, and they were reached in part by innovative means. That's pretty damn compelling. Charismatic he is not; but, he'd be ideal for some key position in the highest echelons of the Party.

"DONNIE" FOWLER, JR.

Donnie, from a rhetorical standpoint, wins most effective first line: "They've asked us to concede."

Arguably, Fowler showed the most passion, but it was messy and applied in the articulation of his ideas inexpertly. He's a brightly shining rising star. Chairing the DNC is not the job for him...yet. But he seems to understand language, technology, and history, which is a potent trio of qualifications, and he had several great lines.
>Fowler's message, in part, was that the Republicans' reality that they now "own" the South and West seems distressingly seductive to too many members of the Democratic "aristocracy of consultants" in D.C., for whom, he complained, "DNC" stood for "Do Not Change," as opposed to "Do Not Concede."
>He is tired of Democrats losing elections, period. In stating such, I think he articulated the ache in the hearts of most of the Party. He's sick of it; we're all sick of it; we're perhaps afraid to say it least it demoralizes...but let's not pretend we don't all feel this way. I think that Fowler's simple statement was a great touch.
>Fowler also understands pragmatically that we "need to be invited to dinner again" by the American People. A great line. Our party, he notes, stands not for this percentage cut in this or that tax, or this policy or that, but soulful realities that if messaged properly will resonate with the American People: Opportunity, Access, a Fair Shake, and Vales.
>In terms of the operations of the DNC, again he sounded themes others carry, too: "Local people know better." He insists he is committed to the grassroots and comes from the grassroots, saying, "I've still got dirt under by fingernails" that he would bring to D.C. as head of the DNC.

TIM ROEMER

While a particular comment of Frost's during the Q&A left me with a very bad taste in my mouth about him, Roemer managed to turn me off from the very beginning. He was dull, yet self-important and slick--even irritatingly coy, evasive. He clearly wanted us to see him as a hero for having been on the 9/11 Commission. Nonetheless, he made some damn good points, and while he annoyed me, I actually agreed with the majority of what he said, for while I'm a progressive and Roemer is not, I am very much a pragmatist and Roemer is as well.
>Roemer quoted Churchill: "You don't win a war by evacuation." He said the Party must concede nothing, not a single state or region or voter, including Republican voters.
>Roemer pointed out that he took out a Republican incumbent as evidence of his ability bring in new Democrats beyond the party's base.
>He was in favor like all the other candidates of giving more money directly to the state parties, but he was not afraid to call for "benchmarks" relative to the state party's performance. This needed to be said, I believe, and I'm glad someone mentioned it. State parties can be just as dysfunctional or out-of-touch as the DNC, and while they absolutely must be more empowered by the DNC to act, they are hardly the complete answer to the Party's various problems.
>Roemer got hissed. His pro-choice stance is too equivocal for many progressives, and they let it be known. I'm a progressive--far more progressive than Roemer--but I'm also proudly a Democrat, who saw a fellow Democrat at a Democratic event being singled out for disrespect. The intensity of my anger surprised me. But the hissing was juvenile and patently unhelpful.

DAVID LELAND

I liked this guy a lot. He doesn't have a hope in hell of being elected to chair the DNC, and his credentials are perhaps too Ohio-centric. He's not necessarily charismatic, yet he was more so than Rosenberg, and as the final speaker, he escalated his rhetoric in an interesting direction. At an event about the future of the DNC, Leland looked backwards for his inspiration, and articulated it beautifully for all Democrats. I wish I could be crediting Dean or Rosenberg with this, but Leland seemed to best understand our history.
>Leland headed the Party in Ohio from 1995-2002, helping carry the state for Clinton. He's come right up through the ranks, which I respect: ward leader to Ohio House of Representatives to the state party.
>Using an extended baseball metaphor, Leland spoke of wanting to be the winning manager, not the star player. I think the analogy works. It touches upon about one of the only two reservations I have about Dean, that being that he's actually too high-profile. The DNC now requires fantastic managerial leadership and concentration, even a degree of isolation, perhaps, to innovate and diligently execute. Will Dean be able to stay behind the scenes when necessary?
>Leland also spoke of the DNC needing to raise a farm team, as teams do in baseball, investing DNC dollars in local talent to work locally.
>America is the land we love today because of the Democratic Party," he stated, and added that that work was on-the-ground, regional work. For me, the civil rights protests at the counters of local restaurants in the South came to mind immediately, as well as the local application in New York State in the late 1920's and 1930's--courtesy of Gov. Al Smith and later FDR--of programs that the New Deal would be modeled.

There was something about Leland that made him seem like, simply put, a nice guy. He isn't a big guy, isn't the youngest, isn't the most charismatic, and doesn't have the most impressive C.V. But, I found it fortuitous that he was the final speaker, and liked ending with a passionately articulated reminder of where we've been as a Party that remade America into what should never be taken for granted: one with programs to combat poverty, bolster scientific and medical research, deliver education to all children, inform and safeguard the public in their role as consumers, build transportation infrastructures, and keep us safe from exploitation in the workplace. His bottom line was that if the Democratic Party didn't give voice to the voiceless millions in America, no one would.

Some final thoughts.

>Fowler and Rosenberg need to be part of any new DNC team. Fowler's understanding of new technologies, (during the Q & A he mentioned the "blogosphere") and his understanding of the disciplined media machine of the Right (he cited Norquist's weekly meetings to keep conservatives on message) are praiseworthy. I am fairly confident that Rosenberg understands these things as well.

>Faith. No one gets how this issue needs to be addressed.

Some of the DNC candidate spoke of how we need to start talking about our faith openly, as Republicans often do. This assumes that a Democrat's faith is essentially the same as any Republican's. (It also seems to assume there are no atheistic Republicans--a very incorrect assumption.) In what came across as a rant and the only thing he stated with passion, Martin Frost in the Q & A shouted that Democrats "believed in God" and were religious.

Well, actually the Party had better want and certainly needs to be a party to which secular humanists and atheists and everyone else contribute, too. Frost's answer assumes that the issue isn't about ideology or theology, but about being tight-lipped. Wrong. A candidate blabbing about his or her faith will only be a distinct asset in particular races in particular states.

Much, much closer to the right answer were Dean, Fowler, and Webb. They spoke of appealing to religious voters by talking about Democratic values, assuming that such values, like the conviction that government must help tend to the needy, will resonate, and by simply demonstrating that Democratic candidates have a values-oriented, not just coldly policy-oriented, vision. This is a huge part of the answer to the Democratic Party's need to reach out to all Americans. Dean's story that ended his addresses touched on this. He told of a Princeton, NJ fundraiser he attended for his presidential campaign where a lone evangelical Christian stated her opposition to abortion and rights for gay Americans. He asked her why the heck she was supporting him then. She said that it was because he had conviction.

The still unrecognized part of he answer to Democratic resonance with Americans of faith, particular Christian Protestants, is simply the nexus between core Democratic values and religious language. Ignorance of evangelical nomenclature and a poor level of biblical literacy is an underestimated impediment for Democrats, sometimes even more of an impediment than a particular stance on a hot button issue. The language I mean does not itself make one a Christian. It can be utilized as much by an atheist as an Assemblies of God minister. But, Contemporary Christian culture started entering the mainstream long ago; to not understand it is a handicap in many places in the country, and a real problem for our presidential candidates. When Democratic candidates attempt to speak it and don't really understand it, it's like fingernails on the chalkboard to many evangelical Christians in particular. (John Kerry, Al Gore, and Wes Clark take note. You all fell into this trap, no doubt heeding the advice of clueless consultants.)

>The two candidates I liked the least were the only two to mention national defense. This is a problem. Frost and Roemer in different ways stated that the Democratic Party is not going to win elections if the American people feel it can't help keep them safe. This is undeniably true, and I hope Dean is aware of this.

>The controversy over the Fowler amendment regarding members at large led to comments that they would decrease diversity. The comments were carelessly made, and Donnie Fowler, Jr. was recognized on a point of personal privilege to defend his father from what he saw as allegations of being opposed to diversity.

It was a classic case of people talking past each other, and a huge waste of time. Don Fowler, Sr. was recognized, and from the floor stated that all the candidates seemed to misunderstand his amendment, which, he pointed out, actually had requirements for keeping diversity among appointees.

However, when all the back and forth was other, and maybe attendees were simply left a bit confused, it made Howard Dean's pledge that as Chair time would not be wasted it arguments about how to cross the t's and dot the i's seem all the more on-target.